TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (1) TMI 855
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Himachal Pradesh High Court in three criminal miscellaneous petitions filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. By the impugned orders, the learned judge quashed the three criminal complaints filed under section 138 read with section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Admittedly, three cheques had been given to the appellant, drawn on Bank of Baroda, Parliament Steet, New Delhi, representing different amounts, amounting to Rs. 2,32,600 in all. These cheques were presented by the appellant for encashment, but the same were returned with the endorsement 'payment stopped by the drawer'. The appellant, therefore, served notices on the respondent, calling upon him to pay the amount of cheques within 15 days....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....igh Court again under section 482. The High Court having allowed the application filed under section 482 by the impugned orders dated 1-2-1999, the complainant has preferred these appeals against the same. Two contentions had been raised before the High Court by the accused : (1)Cheques had been issued in the capacity of the director of the company to whom the watches were supplied, but the complaint has been filed without impleading the company as accused and as such the same is not maintainable; and (2)In the absence of notice, as contemplated by clause (b) of the proviso to section 138, criminal proceedings cannot be proceeded with. The High Court rejected the first contention and held that the criminal prosecution would lie und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....kes demand for the payment of the amount of money under the cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of information received by him from the bank regarding dishonour of the cheque; and the drawer of the cheque fails to make payment of the amount of money within 15 days of the receipt of notice. The High Court, however construed the notices issued to the accused respondent, as a notice in his individual capacity and not to the company Bhalla Techtran Industries Ltd., notwithstanding the fact that the notice was addressed to Shri Amit J. Bhalla, Bhalla Techtran Industries Ltd., 116-Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110003, and, therefore, it was not a notice to the drawer. The High Court further held that the judgment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that supply of watches made by the respondent to the company Bhalla Techtran Industries Ltd. and cheques involved in the case were also issued by the said company through its director that is the petitioner and in view of such admitted facts, the petitioner cannot be proceeded against for the offence under section 138 in his individual capacity, is the only conclusion permissible under the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the order quashing the criminal proceedings should not be interfered with. Accord ing to Mr. Sanghi, the complainant has been prosecuting the accused Amit Bhalla in his individual capacity, though categorically in the complaint petition, it has been stated that the cheques had been issued by Bhalla Tech....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee cheques, while the matter is pending in this court, would make any difference ? 8. So far as the first question is concerned, it is no doubt true that all the three requirements under clauses (a) , (b) and (c) must be complied with before the offence under section 138 can be said to have been committed and section 141 indicates as to who would be the persons, liable in the event the offence is committed by a company. The High Court itself on facts, has recorded the findings that conditions (a) and (b) under section 138 have been duly complied with and, therefore, the only question is whether the conclusion of the High Court that condition (c) has not been complied with, can be said to be in accordance with law. Mere dishonour of a che....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Co.'s case (supra) will have no application. In that case also criminal proceedings had been initiated against. A Chinnaswami, who was the managing director of the company and the cheques in question had been signed by him. In the aforesaid premises, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court committed an error in recording a finding that there was no notice to the drawer of the cheque, as required under section 138. In our opinion, after the cheques were dishonoured by the bank the payee had served due notice and yet there was failure on the part of the accused to pay the money, who had signed the cheques, as the director of the company. The impugned order of the High Court, therefore, is liable to be quashed. ....